Mr. Nadir Rizvi Vs Rafiq Ahmed

Prior leave of Civil Court under Section 124 of Trademarks Act 1999

Introduction:

The High Court of Delhi's recent ruling in the trademark infringement cases, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 301/2022 and 469/2022, underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural requirements under the Trademarks Act, 1999. The cases, involving the petitioner Mr. Nadir Rizvi of M/S. Amroha Mehndi Udhyog and the respondent Rafiq Ahmed of M/S. Shahji General Store, revolved around the contentious issue of the removal of the trademark 'HINA ZULFI' from the Register of Trade Marks. The court’s decision to dismiss the rectification petitions filed by the petitioner due to non-compliance with Section 124(1)(ii) of the Act serves as a crucial lesson for litigants in trademark disputes. This article examines the legal reasoning behind the court's order, the procedural significance of Section 124, and its broader implications for trademark litigation in India.

Background of the Case:

In these cases, the petitioner sought the removal of the respondent's trademark 'HINA ZULFI' from the Trade Marks Register, arguing that the registration was invalid. The petitioner’s challenge was part of an ongoing legal battle, with related suits pending in the District Court of Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Amroha. Specifically, Suit No. 1/2016 was pending, while another suit (No. 01/2013) filed by the petitioner had already been dismissed.

The respondent’s counsel raised a procedural objection, asserting that the petitioner had failed to seek prior leave from the court under Section 124(1)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before filing the rectification petitions. This objection became the focal point of the court's analysis.

Understanding Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999:

The Purpose and Scope of Section 124:

Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 governs the process to be followed when the validity of a trademark’s registration is questioned during an infringement suit. The provision aims to balance the rights of the trademark holder with the need for judicial efficiency, ensuring that challenges to a trademark’s validity are addressed in an orderly and systematic manner.

Section 124(1)(ii) specifically states that if the defendant in a trademark infringement suit challenges the validity of the plaintiff's trademark, the court must stay the suit and allow the party to apply for rectification. However, if no rectification proceedings are pending and the plea appears prima facie tenable, the court is required to adjourn the case, giving the party time to seek rectification. Importantly, the section mandates that a party must obtain prior leave from the court to initiate such rectification proceedings if the matter is already under adjudication.

Legal Significance of Prior Leave:

The requirement of prior leave under Section 124(1)(ii) serves as a procedural safeguard. It prevents the misuse of rectification petitions as a delay tactic and ensures that the court retains control over the proceedings. This provision aligns with the broader principle of judicial economy, preventing parallel litigation and conflicting decisions by different courts.

The Delhi High Court’s Analysis:

Non-Compliance with Section 124:

In the cases at hand, the Delhi High Court critically examined the procedural history and the petitioner's approach. The court observed that the petitioner had bypassed the necessary step of seeking leave from the court before filing the rectification petitions. This oversight, the court noted, was not a mere technicality but a fundamental breach of the procedural requirements laid down by Section 124.

The petitioner’s inability to counter the respondent’s submission regarding non-compliance with Section 124 further weakened his position. The court found that the petitions were filed prematurely and without following the due process, rendering them non-maintainable.

Consequences of Non-Compliance:

As a result of this procedural lapse, the court dismissed the rectification petitions. However, recognizing the petitioner’s right to challenge the validity of the trademark, the court granted liberty to file fresh petitions after adhering to the proper procedure under Section 124. This outcome highlights the judiciary's commitment to enforcing procedural rules while ensuring that substantive rights are not unduly prejudiced.

Broader Implications:

Procedural Rigor in Trademark Litigation:

The court's decision underscores the necessity for procedural rigor in trademark litigation. Compliance with statutory provisions like Section 124 is not merely a formality but a critical aspect of the legal process. The ruling serves as a cautionary tale for litigants and legal practitioners, emphasizing the importance of following established procedures to avoid adverse outcomes.

Impact on Trademark Disputes:

The requirement of prior leave under Section 124 ensures that challenges to a trademark's validity are handled in a controlled and efficient manner. By enforcing this provision, the courts can prevent the dilution of the trademark register through frivolous or poorly considered rectification petitions. This, in turn, strengthens the reliability and integrity of the trademark registration system in India.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court's ruling in the cases of C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 301/2022 and 469/2022 serves as a pivotal reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural requirements under the Trademarks Act, 1999. The dismissal of the rectification petitions due to non-compliance with Section 124(1)(ii) highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the procedural safeguards that underpin the trademark registration system.

Case Citation: Mr. Nadir Rizvi Vs Rafiq Ahmed:16.08.2024 : C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 301/2022: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna: H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Mangalam Organics Ltd Vs Patanjali Ayurved Ltd

Introduction:

The recent decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Mangalam Organics Ltd. vs. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. & Ors. brings to light the critical importance of adhering to judicial orders, particularly interim injunctions, within the framework of Indian civil procedure. The imposition of a substantial cost of Rs. 50 lacs for the violation of an injunction order under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), serves as a stern reminder of the consequences of contemptuous conduct in the legal process. This article delves into the legal reasoning behind the court's decision, the implications of such punitive measures, and the broader significance for parties involved in civil litigation.

Background of the Case:

In the case at hand, the plaintiff, Mangalam Organics Ltd., initiated legal action against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. and others, alleging that the defendants had infringed upon its trade dress and packaging design. The plaintiff sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendants from using a cone-shaped trade dress and carton packaging similar to that of the plaintiff's product.

On August 30, 2023, the court granted the injunction and appointed a Court Receiver to enforce the order. However, despite being served with the injunction, the defendants continued to manufacture and sell the impugned product, leading the plaintiff to file an application for contempt of court under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC.

The Court’s Analysis:

Violation of Injunction and Contempt:

Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC provides the court with the authority to penalize parties who violate injunction orders. The rule underscores the need to maintain the sanctity of judicial orders, allowing the court to enforce compliance through punitive measures, including monetary penalties and imprisonment.

In this case, the court found that the defendants had willfully disobeyed the injunction order. The plaintiff presented compelling evidence, including invoices and purchase records, showing that the defendants continued to sell the impugned product even after the order was issued. The defendants’ defense, claiming inadvertent and unintentional sales, was dismissed by the court as insufficient and unconvincing, given the prolonged period and frequency of the sales.

Punitive Measures: Cost Imposition:

Recognizing the defendants' conduct as contumacious, the court exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to punish the defendants for contempt. Initially, the court directed the defendants to deposit Rs. 50 lacs as a step towards purging their contempt. However, when additional evidence revealed further sales after the defendants had undertaken to comply with the court's orders, the court deemed it necessary to impose a more severe penalty.

The court ordered the defendants to pay a total of Rs. 4 crores to the plaintiff within two weeks, with the previously deposited sum of Rs. 50 lacs to be remitted to the plaintiff. The order also stipulated that failure to comply would result in the defendants being detained in civil prison for two weeks.

Legal Principles at Play:

Inherent Powers of the Court (Section 151 CPC):

Section 151 of the CPC empowers courts to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. In this case, the court utilized its inherent powers to address the defendants' blatant disregard for the judicial process. The decision to impose a substantial monetary penalty and the threat of imprisonment reflects the court’s determination to uphold the authority of its orders.

Order 39 Rule 2A CPC: Enforcement of Injunctions:

Order 39 Rule 2A is designed to ensure that parties respect and adhere to injunction orders. It allows the court to impose sanctions for non-compliance, including attachment of property and imprisonment. The rule is crucial in maintaining the effectiveness of interim relief, as it deters parties from undermining the judicial process.

Broader Implications:

Deterrence Against Contemptuous Conduct:

The decision in this case sends a strong message to litigants that contempt of court will not be tolerated. By imposing a significant monetary penalty and threatening imprisonment, the court emphasized the seriousness of violating injunction orders. This serves as a deterrent against similar conduct in future cases, reinforcing the importance of compliance with judicial directives.

Impact on Civil Litigation:

The case also highlights the importance of interim relief in protecting the rights of parties during the pendency of a lawsuit. By rigorously enforcing injunctions, courts ensure that the status quo is maintained, preventing irreparable harm to the aggrieved party. The imposition of costs and penalties in cases of non-compliance further strengthens the efficacy of interim orders, making them a vital tool in civil litigation.

Conclusion:

The High Court’s decision in Mangalam Organics Ltd. vs. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. & Ors. underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law and the integrity of judicial processes. The imposition of Rs. 50 lacs as a cost for violating an injunction order serves as a potent reminder that contemptuous behavior will attract severe consequences. This case reaffirms the critical role of injunctions in civil litigation and the courts' willingness to enforce compliance through stringent measures. For litigants, this decision is a clear signal that adherence to court orders is not optional but a fundamental obligation that must be met with the utmost seriousness.

Case Citation: Mangalam Organics Ltd Vs Patanjali Ayurved Ltd:29.07.2024 : COMMERCIAL IPR SUIT (L) NO. 21853 OF 2023: Bombay High Court: R.I.Chagla: H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
United & United
Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,
Ph no: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Les Laboratories Servier Vs Sefier Life Science

Similar Corporate Name and Trademark Infringement 

Introduction:

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed this issue in the case of Les Laboratories Servier and Anr. vs. Sefier Life Science Private Ltd., where the plaintiffs sought to prevent the defendant from using a mark deceptively similar to their well-known trademark, SERVIER. This judgment underscores the legal principles surrounding trademark infringement and passing off, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, where the use of similar trade names can lead to life-threatening confusion.

Factual Background:

The plaintiffs, Les Laboratories Servier and Anr., are part of the SERVIER group, a leading French pharmaceutical conglomerate known globally for its commitment to therapeutic progress. Established in 1954, the SERVIER group operates in over 150 countries and is recognized for its extensive research and development in pharmaceuticals. The group’s trademark, SERVIER, has garnered substantial goodwill and reputation over the decades, making it a distinctive and well-known mark in the pharmaceutical industry.

The defendant, Sefier Life Science Private Ltd., began using the mark SEFIER in relation to pharmaceutical products, both as part of its corporate name and domain name. The plaintiffs argued that SEFIER was deceptively similar to their registered trademark SERVIER, leading to a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from using the SEFIER mark, claiming that the defendant’s adoption of the mark was dishonest and amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.

Legal Issues:

The primary legal issues in this case were:

Whether the defendant’s use of the SEFIER mark constituted trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Whether the defendant’s adoption of the SEFIER mark was likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers, particularly in the context of pharmaceutical products.

Whether the use of the SEFIER mark in the defendant’s corporate name and domain name amounted to passing off.

Trademark Infringement: Phonetic and Visual Similarity

One of the core arguments made by the plaintiffs was the phonetic and visual similarity between the marks SEFIER and SERVIER. Trademark law recognizes that even minor similarities in the appearance, sound, or meaning of marks can lead to consumer confusion, particularly when the goods in question are identical or similar.

In this case, the court rejected the defendant’s contention that the marks were phonetically and visually distinct. The defendant argued that the pronunciation of the letters ‘F’ and ‘V’ in SEFIER and SERVIER, respectively, created a different overall impression. However, the court found that this distinction was insufficient to negate the likelihood of confusion, especially given the high degree of similarity in the remaining letters and the overall structure of the marks.

The court further noted that the defendant’s use of the mark as part of its corporate name (Sefier Life Science Private Ltd.) did not diminish the likelihood of confusion. The essential and prominent feature of the defendant’s name was SEFIER, which closely resembled the plaintiffs’ SERVIER mark. In trademark law, it is well established that the addition of descriptive or non-distinctive elements, such as “Life Science Private Ltd.,” does not alter the likelihood of confusion if the dominant part of the name is similar to the registered trademark.

Use of Similar Trade Names and the Application of Section 29(5)

A critical aspect of this case was the application of Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, which deals with the use of a registered trademark as part of a trade name or corporate name. The defendant argued that this provision did not apply because they were not using the plaintiffs’ exact mark but a similar one, and they were not dealing in the same goods or services.

The court dismissed this argument, holding that the defendant’s use of the SEFIER mark as part of its trading name did indeed constitute trademark infringement under Section 29(5). The court emphasized that the mark SEFIER was nearly identical to the plaintiffs’ SERVIER mark and that the defendant was dealing in pharmaceutical products, the same goods for which the plaintiffs had secured trademark registration.

Passing Off and the Likelihood of Confusion:

In addition to trademark infringement, the plaintiffs also claimed that the defendant’s use of the SEFIER mark amounted to passing off. Passing off occurs when one party misrepresents their goods or services as being associated with another party, thereby causing damage to the latter’s goodwill.

The court found that the defendant’s use of the SEFIER mark was likely to cause confusion and deceive consumers into believing that the defendant’s products were associated with or endorsed by the plaintiffs. This was particularly concerning in the pharmaceutical industry, where such confusion could have serious public health implications.

The court also addressed the defendant’s argument that they were not selling goods in India and were only using the mark for export purposes. The court clarified that the application of the impugned mark to goods in India, even for export, constituted use in India and could lead to consumer confusion. This interpretation aligns with the broader objective of trademark law, which is to protect consumers from deception and ensure that trademarks fulfill their role as reliable indicators of the origin of goods and services.

Distinctiveness of the SERVIER Mark:

A noteworthy aspect of the court’s analysis was its consideration of the distinctiveness of the SERVIER mark. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs could not claim exclusivity over a word of common language. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that SERVIER was not a generic term but a distinctive and well-established trademark associated with the plaintiffs’ pharmaceutical products.

The court’s ruling highlights the importance of maintaining the distinctiveness of a trademark. In cases where a mark has acquired substantial goodwill and recognition, even slight variations in a similar mark can lead to a finding of infringement. This is especially true in industries like pharmaceuticals, where consumer trust and safety are paramount.

Conclusion and Implications:

The High Court’s decision in Les Laboratories Servier and Anr. vs. Sefier Life Science Private Ltd. reaffirms the legal principles governing trademark infringement and passing off in India. The court’s order to restrain the defendant from using the SEFIER mark or any deceptively similar mark underscores the importance of protecting trademark rights, particularly in industries where consumer confusion can have dire consequences.

This judgment serves as a reminder to businesses about the significance of conducting thorough trademark searches and ensuring that their chosen marks do not infringe on the rights of established brands. It also highlights the need for courts to adopt a stricter approach in cases involving pharmaceutical products, where the potential for confusion can affect public health.

Case Citation: Les Laboratories Servier Vs Sefier Life Science:19.07.2024 : COM IPR SUIT (L) No.18086 of 2024: Bombay High Court: R.I.Chagla: H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals

Prior search report from the Trademark Registry is must for proving Honest Adoption

Introduction:

The High Court of Judicature at Madras delivered a crucial judgment on July 12, 2024, in the case of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Private Limited and the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai. The case centered around the registration of the trademark 'CANDEX-B' by Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals for pharmaceutical products in Class 5, which Glenmark Pharmaceuticals opposed, citing confusion with its established trademark 'CANDID'. This judgment is significant for understanding the legal principles surrounding trademark disputes, especially the importance of prior search reports from the Trademark Registry in establishing honest adoption.

Background and Factual Matrix:

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, the appellant, has been using the trademark 'CANDID' since 1978-79 for dermatological products. The company opposed the registration of 'CANDEX-B' by Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals, arguing that the mark was confusingly similar to 'CANDID' and could mislead consumers. The appellant also claimed that the first respondent's adoption of 'CANDEX-B' was dishonest, intending to capitalize on the goodwill associated with 'CANDID'. Importantly, Glenmark emphasized that Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals failed to conduct a trademark search prior to adopting 'CANDEX-B', which would have revealed the existence of 'CANDID' in the register.

On the other hand, Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals argued that they had been using 'CANDEX-B' since 1997 and were entitled to protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as an honest and concurrent user. They contended that both trademarks derived from the medical term for candidiasis, a fungal infection, and there was no likelihood of confusion.

Legal Issues:

The primary issues before the court were:

1. Whether the first respondent's use of 'CANDEX-B' constituted honest and concurrent use under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act.
2. Whether the failure to conduct a trademark search before adopting the mark 'CANDEX-B' impacted the validity of the first respondent's claim.
3. Whether the registration of 'CANDEX-B' was likely to cause confusion or deception among the public, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.

Prior Search Report: A Crucial Element in Establishing Honest Adoption:

The appellant's argument hinged on the fact that Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals did not conduct a prior trademark search before adopting 'CANDEX-B'. A prior search report from the Trademark Registry is a critical document in trademark law as it establishes whether a proposed trademark is unique or similar to existing marks. The absence of such a search can indicate a lack of due diligence, which is often considered when assessing whether the adoption of a mark was honest.

In this case, the court emphasized that Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act is designed to protect the public interest by preventing confusion or deception. The court noted that had Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals conducted a proper search, they would have discovered the existing 'CANDID' mark, which would have alerted them to the potential for consumer confusion.

The court observed that failing to undertake this due diligence was a significant omission, casting doubt on the bona fides of Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals' claim of honest adoption. This omission weakened their position, especially given the established reputation and prior use of 'CANDID' by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

Likelihood of Confusion and Deception:

Another crucial aspect of the court's analysis was the likelihood of confusion between 'CANDEX-B' and 'CANDID'. Both marks were used for dermatological products, and the court noted that such products directly impact public health. In such cases, even a minor likelihood of confusion can have serious consequences.

The court referred to the precedent set in Indian Immunologicals, where the strength of a trademark was considered weak due to its derivation from a generic name. However, the court distinguished the present case by emphasizing that 'CANDID' had been in use for over two decades before 'CANDEX-B', making it a well-known trademark in the pharmaceutical industry.

Given the similarity in the goods, the court found that 'CANDEX-B' was likely to cause confusion among consumers who might assume it was related to or endorsed by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals. This potential confusion, combined with the failure to conduct a prior search, led the court to conclude that the adoption of 'CANDEX-B' was not bona fide.

Conclusion and Court's Decision:

The court ultimately held that Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals' use of 'CANDEX-B' did not constitute honest and concurrent use under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. The court also found that there was a significant likelihood of deception or confusion among the public due to the similarity of the trademarks and the fact that both were used for treating dermatological conditions.

The judgment underscored the importance of conducting a prior search before adopting a trademark, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, where the potential for confusion can have serious public health implications. The court set aside the impugned order and canceled the registration of 'CANDEX-B', directing its removal from the register of trademarks.

This case serves as a vital reminder of the need for thorough due diligence in trademark adoption and the potential consequences of failing to do so. The judgment reinforces the role of prior search reports in proving honest adoption and the courts' responsibility to protect public interest by preventing confusion in the marketplace.

Case Citation: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals:12.07.2024 : (T) CMA (TM) No.40 of 2023: Madras High Court: Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy: H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
United & United
Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,
Ph no: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

GD Pharmaceuticals Vs Cento Products

The High Court of Delhi, on August 7, 2024 delivered a judgment in the case of G.D. Pharmaceuticals Private Limited (plaintiff) versus M/S Cento Products (India) (defendant), case number CS(COMM) 53/2019 & I.A. 2215/2021. The plaintiff, established in 1929, is a manufacturer and seller of medicinal and cosmetic preparations, with a focus on OTC pharmaceuticals and health care cosmetics. They are the proprietors of the trademark "BOROLINE," registered since 1929 for antiseptic ointments and creams, and have used distinctive dark green and white packaging for nearly 90 years.

The trademark 'BOROLINE' has been in use since 1929, which means it has been used for nearly 90 years at the time the document was written. The distinctive features of the trademark 'BOROLINE' include, A distinctive dark green and white packaging that has been used for the last 90 years.The product is sold in the form of tubes and plastic pots.

The entire packaging of the products is of a distinctive dark green color.

The trademark 'BOROLINE' is presented in a stylized, white colored font, in block capital letters across the middle of the packaging.

The registered mark appears on the right-hand corner of the packaging.

The trademark is associated with a distinct dark green tube ending in an octagonal black cap, which has come to be recognized with the plaintiff's product.

The suit was filed seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, among other reliefs. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's product, marketed under the name "BOROBEAUTY," had a deceptively similar trade dress and packaging to their "BOROLINE" products. Despite the defendant's offers to change their trade dress and name during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff pressed for a declaration of "BOROLINE" as a well-known mark.

The court, after considering the extensive use, popularity, and recognition of the "BOROLINE" trademark, declared it a well-known mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court noted the trademark's long history, its recognition as a Superbrand, and its extensive sales and advertising. The defendant was directed to change its trade dress and trademark to be distinct from the plaintiff's, refraining from using the prefix "BORO" and the dark green color associated with "BOROLINE."

The court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using any mark or trade dress that could be confused with "BOROLINE." The defendant was also ordered to pay costs of ₹2,00,000 to the plaintiff within eight weeks. The suit and pending applications were disposed of, with the decree sheet to be drawn up accordingly.

Case Citation: GD Pharmaceuticals Vs Cento Products:07.08.2024 : CS(COMM) 53/2019 : 2024:DHC:6224: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna: H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Dabur India Limited Vs Ashok Kumar

In the High Court of Delhi, Dabur India Limited filed a suit against Ashok Kumar and others for trademark infringement, copyright violation, passing off, and unfair competition. The plaintiff, represented by several advocates, sought various interim orders.

The nature of the dispute between Dabur India Limited and Ashok Kumar and Others involves allegations of trademark infringement, copyright violation, passing off, and unfair competition. Specifically, Dabur India Limited claims that unknown defendant no. 1 (likely associated with Ashok Kumar and Others) is operating fake domains and engaging in activities that infringe upon Dabur's registered trademarks and copyrights. This includes using Dabur's trademarks, logos, and content without authorization to deceive the public and solicit customer.

The suit alleges that unknown defendant no. 1 is operating fake domains and impersonating Dabur by using the company's trademarks and logos to deceive the public and solicit customers. The plaintiff provided evidence of the defendants' fraudulent activities, including screenshots of the impugned websites, forged identity cards, and bank accounts used for receiving payments from unsuspecting individuals.

The court issued an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using Dabur's trademarks, logos, and content on their websites and directed the defendants to take down the infringing URLs. The court also ordered the blocking of telephone numbers, WhatsApp numbers, Telegram links, and bank accounts associated with the defendants' fraudulent activities.

Case Citation: Dabur India Limited Vs Ashok Kumar:18.07.2024 : CS(COMM) 578/2024 : Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna: H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Abbott Gmbh Vs Tcsol Biopharma

The plaintiffs, ABBOTT GMBH & ORS., allege that the defendants, TCSOL BIOPHARMA & ORS., are infringing on their trademark, trade dress, and design for the pharmaceutical product 'THYRONORM.' The nature of the infringement includes:

Trademark Infringement:

The defendants are using a similar name, 'L-THYRONEU,' which the court found to be phonetically similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademark 'THYRONORM.' This similarity could lead to confusion among consumers.

Trade Dress Infringement:

The defendants are using a trade dress that is structurally similar to that of the plaintiffs, specifically the distinctive color combination of white and pink.

Design Infringement:

The defendants are using a cap design that is substantially similar to the plaintiffs' registered design, which could also cause consumer confusion.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants' actions constitute a clear attempt to capitalize on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs' well-known brand 'THYRONORM' in the pharmaceutical market.

The defendants were using a similar pink and white color combination and a similar name, 'L-THYRONEU,' which the court found to be phonetically and structurally similar to 'THYRONORM.' The court, exercising caution due to the nature of pharmaceutical products, granted an ex-parte injunction against the defendants, restraining them from using the infringing mark, trade dress, and design.

Case Citation: Abbott Gmbh Vs Tcsol Biopharma:16.07.2024 : CS(COMM) 573/2024: Delhi High Court: Saurabh Banerjee: H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Adidas Ag Vs Keshav H Tulsiani

In the High Court of Delhi, Adidas AG, a renowned sports goods manufacturer, filed a suit against Keshav H. Tulsiani & Ors for trademark infringement. Adidas, established in 1948, has a global reputation and extensive sales, including in India, where it has been present since 1989. The company has multiple trademark registrations in India, including for the "Adidas" mark.

The defendants, who did not appear in court, claimed they adopted the mark "Adidas" in good faith, inspired by personal affection, and argued that the suit was barred by delay, acquiescence, and laches. However, the court found that Adidas had consistently opposed the defendants' trademark applications and promptly challenged the erroneous registration upon discovery.

The court established its territorial jurisdiction based on Adidas's business activities in Delhi and the defendants' admission of selling their goods all over India. The court also ruled that the suit was not barred by delay, laches, or acquiescence, as Adidas had actively pursued legal actions to protect its trademark rights.

The court found that Adidas was the prior user of the "Adidas" mark in India, with registrations predating the defendants' adoption in 1987. The defendants' trademark registration in class 24 for textiles was canceled, and their claim of prior use was not substantiated.

The court concluded that the defendants' use of the "Adidas" mark for textiles infringed Adidas's trademark rights, given the identity of the marks and the similarity of the goods. The defendants failed to demonstrate honest adoption or to provide evidence of actual use before Adidas's registrations.

In light of the infringement, the court granted Adidas a permanent injunction against the defendants' use of the "Adidas" mark for textiles. Adidas was awarded nominal damages of Rs. 3,00,000 and litigation costs of Rs. 11,22,060. The court disposed of the suit and pending applications with these terms.

Case Citation: Adidas Ag Vs Keshav H Tulsiani:19.07.2024 : CS(COMM) 582/2018: Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula: H.J

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,

Ph no: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.